New Perspectives on Human Sacrifice and Ritual Body ... · x Table of Contents. 1 New Perspectives on Human Sacrifice and Postsacrificial Body Treatments in Ancient Maya Society:

New Perspectives on Human Sacrificeand Ritual Body Treatments in AncientMaya Society

INTERDISCIPLINARY CONTRIBUTIONS TO ARCHAEOLOGY

Founding Editor: Roy S. Dickens, Jr. Late of University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill,North Carolina

THE ARCHAEOLOGIST’S LABORATORYThe Analysis of Archaeological DataE.B. Banning

AURIGNACIAN LITHIC ECONOMYEcological Perspectives from Southwestern FranceBrooke S. Blades

EARLIEST ITALYAn Overview of the Italian Paleolithic and MesolithicMargherita Mussi

EMPIRE AND DOMESTIC ECONOMYTerence N. D’Altroy and Christine A. Hastorf

EUROPEAN PREHISTORY: A SURVEYEdited by Saurunas Miliasuskas

THE EVOLUTION OF COMPLEX HUNTER-GATHERERSArchaeological Evidence from the North PacificBen Fitzhugh

GATHERING HOPEWELLEdited by Christopher Carr and D. Troy Case

A HUNTER-GATHERER LANDSCAPESouthwest Germany in the Late Paleolithic and NeolithicMichael A. Jochim

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON HUMAN SACRIFICE AND RITUAL BODY TREATMENTS IN ANCIENT MAYA SOCIETYEdited by Vera Tiesler and Andrea Cucina

REMOTE SENSING IN ARCHAEOLOGYEdited by James Wiseman and Farouk El-Baz

THE TAKING AND DISPLAYING OF HUMAN BODY PARTS AS TROPHIES BYAMERINDIANSEdited by Richard J. Chacon and David H. Dye

TRANSITIONS BEFORE THE TRANSITIONEdited by Erella Hovers and Steven Kuhn

A Continuation Order Plan is available for this series. A continuation order will bring delivery of eachnew volume immediately upon publication. Volumes are billed only upon actual shipment. For furtherinformation please contact the publisher.

Series Editor: Jelmer Eerkens, University of California, Davis, Davis, California

New Perspectives on HumanSacrifice and Ritual BodyTreatments in Ancient MayaSociety

Edited by

Vera TieslerFacultad de Ciencias Antropológicas, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Mérida, Mexico

and

Andrea CucinaFacultad de Ciencias Antropológicas, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Mérida, Mexico

Library of Congress Control Number: 2006937450

Printed on acid-free paper.

permission of the publisher (Springer Science + Business Media, LLC, 233 Spring Street, New York,NY 10013, USA), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use inconnection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer

The use in this publication of trade names, trademarks, service marks, and similar terms, even if theyare not identified as such, is not to be taken as an expression of opinion as to whether or not they aresubject to proprietary rights.

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

springer.com

Vera TieslerFacultad de Ciencias AntropológicasUniversidad Autónoma de YucatánMérida, Yucatá[email protected]

Andrea CucinaFacultad de Ciencias AntropológicasUniversidad Autónoma de YucatánMérida, Yucatá[email protected]

First softcover printing, 2008

ISBN: 978-0-387-09524-0 softcoverISBN: 978-0-387-48870-7 hardcover

© 2007 Springer Science + Business Media, LLC

e-ISBN: 978-0-387-48871-4 ebook

All rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in part without the written

Cover illustration: (Figure 6.4 from book) Decapitation ritual on Santa Rita was wall, Mound 1. After

software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden.

Gann, 1900: Pl. 31

To Professor Arturo Romano Pacheco

List of Contributors

Guillermo de Anda AlanísFacultad de Ciencias Antropológicas,Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Mérida, Mexico

Jane E. Buikstra Center for Bioarchaeological

Research, School of Human Evolution and

Social Change,Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA

James H. BurtonLaboratory for Archaeological

Chemistry, Department of Anthropology,

University of Wisconsin Madison,

Madison, Wisconsin, USA

Aleida Cetina BastidaFacultad de Ciencias Antropológicas, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Mérida, Mexico

Andrea CucinaFacultad de Ciencias Antropológicas, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Mérida, Mexico

William J. FolanCentro de Investigaciones Históricas

y Sociales, Universidad Autónoma de Campeche, Campeche, Mexico

Sherry A. GibbsTourism Development Project, Ministry of Tourism, Belize

Eleanor Harrison-BuckDepartment of Archaeology, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

Christine HernándezDepartment of Anthropology, Tulane University,New Orleans, Louisiana, USA

Araceli Hurtado CenFacultad de Ciencias Antropológicas, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán,Mérida, Mexico

Fred LongstaffeDepartment of Earth Sciences, University of Western Ontario,London, Ontario, Canada

vii

Lisa J. LuceroDepartment of Sociology and

Anthropology, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA

Patricia A. McAnanyDepartment of Archaeology, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

Cecilia Medina MartínFacultad de Ciencias Antropológicas, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Mérida, Mexico

Virginia E. MillerDepartment of Art History, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA

Carlos Peraza LopeInstituto Nacional de Antropología e

Historia, Centro INAH Yucatán,Mérida, Mexico

T. Douglas PriceLaboratory for Archaeological

Chemistry, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin Madison,Madison, Wisconsin, USA

Mirna Sánchez VargasFacultad de Ciencias Antropológicas, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Mérida, Mexico

Stanley SerafinDepartment of Anthropology,Tulane University,New Orleans, Louisiana, USA

Rebecca StoreyAnthropology Department, University of Houston,Houston, Texas, USA

Vera TieslerFacultad de Ciencias Antropológicas, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Mérida, Mexico

Gabrielle VailNew College of Florida,Sarasota, Florida, USA

Christine D. WhiteDepartment of Anthropology, University of Western Ontario,London, Ontario, Canada

Lori E. WrightDepartment of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA

viii List of Contributors

Table of Contents

1. New Perspectives on Human Sacrifice and Postsacrificial BodyTreatments in Ancient Maya Society: An Introduction 1Andrea Cucina and Vera Tiesler

2. Funerary or Nonfunerary? New References in Identifying Ancient Maya Sacrificial and Postsacrificial Behaviors from Human Assemblages 14Vera Tiesler

3. The Creation and Sacrifice of Witches in Classic Maya Society 45Lisa J. Lucero and Sherry A. Gibbs

4. Empowered and Disempowered During the Late to Terminal Classic Transition: Maya Burial and Termination Rituals in the Sibun Valley, Belize 74Eleanor Harrison-Buck, Patricia A. McAnany, and Rebecca Storey

5. Posthumous Body Treatments and Ritual Meaning in the ClassicPeriod Northern Petén. A Taphonomic Approach 102Cecilia Medina Martín and Mirna Sánchez Vargas

6. Human Sacrifice in Late Postclassic Maya Iconography and Texts 120Gabrielle Vail and Christine Hernández

7. Skeletons, Skulls, and Bones in the Art of Chichén Itzá 165Virginia E. Miller

8. Sacrifice and Ritual Body Mutilation in Postclassical Maya Society: Taphonomy of the Human Remains from Chichén Itzá’s Cenote Sagrado 190Guillermo de Anda Alanís

ix

9. Sacred Spaces and Human Funerary and Nonfunerary Placements in Champotón, Campeche, During the Postclassic Period 209Araceli Hurtado Cen, Aleida Cetina Bastida, Vera Tiesler, and William J. Folan

10. Human Sacrificial Rites Among the Maya of Mayapán: A Bioarchaeological Perspective 232Stanley Serafin and Carlos Peraza Lope

11. Nutrition, Lifestyle, and Social Status of Skeletal Remains from Nonfunerary and “Problematical” Contexts 251Andrea Cucina and Vera Tiesler

12. Victims of Sacrifice: Isotopic Evidence for Place of Origin 263T. Douglas Price, James H. Burton, Lori E. Wright, Christine D. White, and Fred Longstaffe

13. The Bioarchaeology of Maya Sacrifice 293Jane E. Buikstra

Subject Index 309

x Table of Contents

1New Perspectives on Human Sacrificeand Postsacrificial Body Treatments inAncient Maya Society: An Introduction

ANDREA CUCINA AND VERA TIESLER

1

1.1. Human Sacrifice

Our interest in sacrifice and sacrificial behavior received a boost in June 2001,during a visit to Professor Arturo Romano’s lab in Mexico City. There we wereto examine the remains of a female Maya dignitary from the ancient Maya city ofPalenque, Chiapas, called the “Red Queen.” The remains of the noble woman andher two companions had been discovered by archaeologists of the InstitutoNacional de Antropología e Historia (INAH) 7 years earlier inside a sacrophagustomb next to the Temple of the Inscriptions and now rested in the renownedanthropologist’s lab. Upon assessing the skeletons of the Red Queen’s attendants,we soon came across unmistakable and undeniable cut and stabmarks. Theanatomical arrangement of the two skeletons inside the tomb implied that bothcorpses had been deposited on the ground before the chamber was sealed, each atone side of the sarcophagus. The forearms of one individual still appeared crossedbehind the back. The joint skeletal and taphonomic evidence left little doubt onthe violent treatment received by the Red Queen’s companions, thus providingnovel insights into ancient sacrificial behavior surrounding noble funerary ceremonies (Cucina and Tiesler, 2006; Tiesler et al., 2002).

Up until now, studies on sacrifice and sacrificial body treatments from the Mayaarchaeological record have relied heavily on indirect indications, such as multipleinterments in supposedly nonfunerary contexts, irregular placings of skeletal remains,along with sex and age profiles, and nutritional status. The reasons for the dearth ofpublished skeletal data on perimortem violence and related posthumous processingare numerous. The poor preservation of skeletal material especially in the MayaLowlands with its hot and humid climate, puts important limitations on any endeavorto evaluate anthropogenic marks as acts reminiscent of sacrificial and postsacrificialbehaviors are not likely to leave traces on the record. This has led to a general lack ofthat kind of evidence that accounts for sacrificial or otherwise violent conduct.

Other skeletal information has received little importance in earlier works asproof of sacrifice. Such is the case of the numerous burials and caches containingisolated skulls with the associated upper neck vertebras. Some authors have

inferred from these arrangements that the individuals had died due to beheading(see, for example, Ruz, 1991; Welsh, 1988), although alternative processes, likenatural disturbances or posthumous body manipulation cannot and should not bediscarded. Relevant in this particular example is, for instance, that the first cervicalvertebra usually remains united to the skull long after the rest of the spine has decomposed. This natural phenomenon implies that even in advanced states of decomposition skulls may retain the atlas vertebra as they separate from the postcranium during skeletonization or while being transported (Duday,1997).

In line with the above drawbacks is the lack of interdisciplinary communica-tion in dealing with this topic of Maya archaeological research, which hasresulted in diverse parallel interpretations of the different lines of positive andnegative evidences on ancient sacrifice and violent behavior. As a matter of fact,at present no systematic or unified approaches exist toward the study of sacrificein the Maya realm, a situation that differs somewhat from other Mesoamericanareas, namely the Aztecs, where different evolutionary, functional and, morerecently, hermeneutical frameworks have been put forth to explain its role withina coherent sociocultural scheme.

Only recently has the scholarly community of Mayanists become aware of theenormous potential that the integrated evaluation of the skeleton in its depositionaltaphonomic context (osteotaphonomy) conveys in the reconstruction and interpre-tation of ancient Maya society (Buikstra, 1997; Tiesler, 2004; Webster, 1997).McAnany (1995:63) argues to the point that “ambiguity in the interpretation ofskeletal material indicates an area of research in which advances in methodsof interpretation are urgently needed while we still have access to the skeletalremains of the ancestors of the contemporary Maya.” Luckily, for researchers, no NAGPRA-like proposals are on the horizon yet in this part of Latin America, atleast in the near future.

Lately, the lack of direct indications of ritual sacrifice has induced a number ofscholars to assert that many of the assemblages formerly ascribed to sacrificialbehaviors might as well have resulted from funerary customs rather than theimmolation of a living victim. Many authors argue that, beside sacrifice, a widearray of protracted mortuary treatments and unrelated cultural behavior mayaccount for some of these mostly disarticulated remains (Becker, 1992, 1993;Chase and Chase, 2003; Fitzsimmons and Fash, 2003, Gillespie, 2001, 2002;Houston et al., 2003; McAnany, 1995, 1998; McAnany and López, 1999;McAnany et al., 1999; Weiss-Krejci, 2001, 2003). Recently, Weiss-Krejci (2003)has called into question the sacrificial origin of many of the undisturbed, multi-ple burials that had formerly been assigned sacrificial status. In the case of thestuccoed box containing the skeletal remains of five or six individuals sealingPakal’s funerary chamber, she proposed as an alternative scenario that this sym-bolic energy-laden space was used not as a sacrificial retainer but an area forburying members of Pakal’s “house”. Her interpretation stands in contrast tothe recent reevaluation of Ruz’s original drawings and the direct examination ofparts of the skeletal remains which appear in concordance with the original inter-

2 Andrea Cucina and Vera Tiesler

pretation as a simultaneous, multiple deposit that most likely served the sacrifi-cial purpose originally ascribed by Ruz (Cucina and Tiesler, 2006). This andother cases illustrate the present difficulties in reconciling different data sets inbenefit of viable, differentiated inferences of ancient Maya ritual behavior asascertained from the archaeological record.

Unsurprisingly, this situation is somewhat different from the scholarship ofother regions of Mesoamerica, namely the Central Highlands. Here, detailed colo-nial accounts (Durán, 1993; Sahagún, 1932) inform on the calendar of religiousoccasions for sacrifice, on the festivities and forms of the killings and the associ-ated acts of cannibalism, skinning, and trophy display. Despite some form ofexaggerations and ethnocentrism, there is no doubt about the large scale and keyrole that sacrificial practices played in many Highland societies. Along withiconography and the numerous archeological findings, the Central Mexican eth-nohistoric literature has granted a much more holistic picture of violent ritualbehavior than is the case for the Maya area. Apart from the conspicuousness of thetopic, this is probably why this cultural Mesoamerican phenomenon has beeninvestigated intensively within the sociocultural landscape of the CentralHighlands. In doing so, authors have adhered to some central Leitmotive, like ide-ology, worldviews, and religion (Carrasco, 1999; González, 1985; Matos, 1986;Román, 1990; see also Boone, 1984). Others have focused on the role of violencein the politics of expansionism, supremacy, and military expression of power, alongwith ecogical concerns (Davies, 1981; Demarest 1984; Harner, 1977; Sugiyama,2005).

If documentation has been and continues to be the main source of infor-mation in the study of ritual sacrifice and associated body processing inMesoamerica, lately also the direct analysis of human remains has acquiredenormous value in the detection and interpretation of the protracted treatmentsof corpses that could stand for sacrificial and postsacrificial conduct (Malvidoet al., 1997; Pijoan, 1997; Pijoan and Lizarraga, 2004; Talavera et al., 2001;Turner and Turner, 1999). Particularly the last decade has witnessed a shift inthe osteological approach for the interpretation of sacrifice in Mesoamerica, ashuman taphonomy has eventually gained a substantial role in the study of pos-sible sacrificial behaviors. A key strength in this pioneering, mainly Mexican-based, line of research is its combined reliance on four pillars of evidence:human taphonomy, historical documentation, iconographic evidence, and mate-rial culture (in the form of lithic implements or contextual information). On thedownside, the recognition of sacrificial behavior or corpse manipulations in theCentral Highlands still awaits a unified set of expected correlates and patternrecognition, an aspect that seems more advanced in studies conducted on theNorth American and Andean mortuary record (see Buikstra in this volume). Itis also conspicuous that the “data rich” investigative environment that charac-terizes the study of Central Highland assemblages has not yet produced debateson their funerary vs. nonfunerary status in the manner that characterizesMayanist research (Grégory Pereira, Linda Manzanilla personal communica-tion, 2006).

1. New Perspectives on Human Sacrifice 3

As stated, Maya human taphonomy has not received much attention in thereconstruction of mortuary behavior possibly related to sacrificial violence whencompared to the Central Mexican Highlands. Some recent findings andapproaches hold promise, however (see Tiesler in this volume, for an extendedreview). Our own encounter with skeletal marks of violence on the humanremains from Palenque some 5 years ago reinforced our awareness of the factualdimension of human sacrifice documented by iconographic and colonial compi-lations for the Maya realm. It followed that skeletal evidence for sacrificialbehavior and related body manipulation had to be present in the archaeologicalrecord but had not been systematically defined yet. Our discovery thus led us toexamine systematically several skeletal collections from the Northern Petén areaand northern Yucatán. The results of these investigations and the information sup-plied by our fellow contributors will be evaluated and interpreted at length in thisvolume to promote a more comprehensive understanding of human sacrifice andritual body manipulation in the Maya realm.

1.1.1. The Scope of this Book

This volume grew specifically out of the results of a symposium on humansacrifice and postsacrificial body treatments in ancient Maya society that unitedscholars working in different fields of Maya research on the central questionrelated to the scope and dynamics of ancient Maya sacrificial behavior. Held dur-ing the Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology in 2005, thesymposium promised to provide new information and novel perspectives onhuman sacrifice and ritual body processing, centering on the recognition of tapho-nomic patterns. It addressed explicitly the discussions surrounding cache-burialidentifications, along with the potential meanings and procedures that make upbody part interments. The contributions proposed and applied a broad array ofconcepts derived from taphonomy and bioarchaeology, along with epigraphy, art,and historical sources. The chapters encompass ritual behavior and meaning,indications of perimortem violence, posthumous heat exposure and bodyprocessing, and provenance of sacrificial victims and their living conditions.

It is not the purpose of this volume to solve or even reach a consensus onthe ongoing debate on the presence of postsacrificial vs. burial deposits from theMaya archaeological record. Each scholar contributing to the scientific debateon this important topic in the Maya area brings in his/her own theoretical back-ground, working hypotheses, and in-field observations. These ideas and notionsare the product of years of thorough research and academic exchange. There wasconsensus by all participants on two issues, however. The first states that itwould be a gross oversimplification to use the label of “sacrifice” for everyhuman assemblage outside the scope of burial classifications. Jane Buikstra’scomments at the end of the symposium addressed specifically the need to eval-uate alternative explanations and to demonstrate models and not just assumethem to be true (Buikstra, 2005). Second, it is also a mistake to deny completelythe reality of such practices for the lack of direct proof. The lack of data has to


be interpreted with caution because absence of evidence not always means evi-dence of absence.

The central goal of this book is to contribute to the advancement of the dis-cussion and understanding of Maya sacrifice and posthumous body manipulation.This goal can be broken down into three objectives. First of all, this volume wantsto make a set of organized analytical criteria available that have not yet beenemployed systematically and methodically in Maya archaeological reconstruc-tion. They derive mainly from taphonomic research and a model of sequencedritual behavior with its corresponding taphonomic and depositional signatures ofthe skeletal remains. It is not enough to underscore that data processing shouldnot be limited to the aseptic, dust- or mud-free, high-tech lab environment butshould start in the field. It is only here and in close collaboration among allspecialists, that the relevant taphonomic, artifactual, and contextual informationis retrieved.

A second goal concerns interdisciplinarity. Like other lines of evidence, skele-tal information can only have meaning when evaluated jointly and critically withevidence produced by other lines of research. Only a truly open-minded andintegrated interdisciplinary approach can develop a wide-angle view of thecomplex biocultural framework that characterizes Maya archaeology and bioar-chaeology. This approach should not be confined to the exchange of empiricalinformation and technical know-how, but should include combined, ideallyshared frames of reference for interpretation. Only this extended approach willsecure a fuller exploitation of the area’s abundant and rich database suitable toshift research questions and truly advance our understanding of ancient Mayacultural dynamics and their social undercurrents (see also Webster, 1997:6).

Finally, we hope that the contributions in this volume set the stage for a sys-tematic examination of anthropogenic indicators in Classic and Postclassic Mayasites. We hope these studies provide a starting point for future broad assessmentsof the archaeological and bioarchaeological record, directed toward a broaderappraisal of funerary and nonfunerary patterns. On an inferencial level, we hopeto advance the discussion concerning context and programing practices includingritual postsacrificial processing in ancient Maya society.

1.1.2. The Contributions

The book is structured along the lines of the central goals described earlier. Theinitial chapters deal with broader analytical and methodological issues, followedby Classic and Postclassic evidence for sacrifice and postsacrificial processing.These are critically explored as to which alternative funerary scenarios are to beevaluated to give way to more regionally generalized issues of provenance, social,and health status of nonfunerary individuals. A joint discussion at the end of thevolume puts the scope and reach of this work into an updated, supraregionalperspective.

Chapter 2 by Vera Tiesler provides some theoretical bases for the interpretationof funerary and nonfunerary ritual behavior. The author brings in new data and


theoretical concepts on posthumous human body treatment among the Classicperiod Maya, from a combined taphonomic, osteological, and archaeological per-spective. This contribution is designed to include methodological assistance inthe assessment and interpretation of different posthumous body treatments andthe potential funerary vs. nonfunerary practices that may have originated them.For this purpose, Tiesler proposes a set of osteotaphonomic correlates derivedfrom funerary practices in contrast to sacrificial practices, resting upon religious-philosophical frames of reference. Also, she discusses the concept of death andburial in the Maya area, the institution of and occasion for human sacrifice andposthumous body treatment (defleshing, exposure to fire, dismemberment amongothers), and their respective biocultural signatures. The case of a juvenile retainerburial from Becán exemplifies some of these phenomena. Here, the osteological,taphonomic, and architectural lines of information are combined to recreate thelikely ritual scenarios that accompanied the youngster’s death and the manipula-tion of his remains.

A novel approach to the issue of witches and witchcraft among the ancientMaya is pursued by Lucero and Gibbs in Chap. 3. The authors explore specifically the possibility of witch sacrifice and that of innocent victims, basing their study on the attributes of skeletal remains encountered in caves.Natural caves, as well as cenotes, are conceived as portals to the underworld.These places house powerful spirits and are, therefore, sacred but at the same time dangerous. Sorcery is carried out in caves, where the “good” peopledo not enter. For this reason, as Lucero and Gibbs propose, caves may have been used to accomodate not only the ancestors, but also the remains of killed witches. Taphonomic and demographic arguments are employed to pro-vide elements that recreate the potential role of witchcraft associated with cavedeposits.

The skeletal remains from the caves of Actun Tunichil Muknal and ActunUayazba Kab in central Belize are illustrative. The two environments provideopposite scenarios, as the remains encountered in the former do not appear tohave been buried properly, whereas those in the latter appear to contain regularinterments. The taphonomic and archaeological evidence is employed to sort thedifferent forms of funerary rituals. In addition, the authors consider the demo-graphic factor an important element to distinguish the ritual sacrifice of inno-cents from witch sacrifice aimed at “punishing” the individuals for the threatthey represented in life. The infants and subadults might have been chosen asinnocent victims to be immolated to the gods, while the adults are thought tohave been selected on a community-wide consensus. They (the witches) mighthave been dangerous to the community and therefore removed from it throughritual killing. Unfortunately, the heavy calcite deposits on the bones in cavesimpeded the recording of any cultural mark attributable to violence. On the con-trary, the remains in Uayazba Kab cave had all been interred properly, whichleads the authors to interpret the cave site as a place “. . .for funerary rites andthe creation of ancestors. . . .”


In the contribution by Harrison-Buck, McAnany, and Storey (Chap. 4), humanremains together with archaeological material are informative of social andpolitical circumstances. Two deposits at the Hershey and Pakal Na sites (bothfrom Belize’s Sibun Valley) reflect contrasting messages of empowerment andconquest. These deposits, dating to the Late-to-Terminal Classic transition,highlight connections to distant polities to the north and to the west duringa period of political reorientation in the valley. In the first case (Hershey site), disarticulated human remains were encountered during excavations, along withsmashed ceramic serving vessels and other finely made artifacts. The individu-als do not appear to have been sacrificed and the authors infer from the archae-ological and skeletal evidence that this assemblage resulted from a victorioustomb desecration event accompanied by feasting and the destruction of the sitecore. The archaeological, taphonomic, and epigraphic evidences are discussedjointly to provide a convincing case for a termination deposit directly related toconflict and disempowerment, which marked the final stages of a political eliteconquered by newcomers. The context from Pakal Na contrasts with the assem-blage from Hershey, despite the similarity in terms of geography, chronology,and ceramic artifacts. The primary burial presents a high status individual whohad been interred along with four other individuals. The osteotaphonomic analy-sis reveals a complex funerary ritual and posthumous body manipulation. Inopposition to the Hershey tomb desecration, the authors argue that the tombmanipulation at Pakal Na reflects the veneration of an important ancestor, maybeeven someone coming from the same northern area as newcomers. Rather than disempowerment, the evidence from Pakal Na points to new politicalalliances with the north (namely Chichén Itzá) during the Late-to-TerminalClassic transition.

Medina and Sánchez (Chap. 5) address the use of fire and direct body manip-ulation in postmortem rituals resting upon the evidence from the Classic Mayasites of Calakmul and Becán. Fire was of paramount importance in ancient Mayaritual traditions and abundantly depicted in scenes of sacrifice, while it is scarcelyif ever encountered in regular funerary contexts during the Classic. The authors’analyses shed light on heating procedures by distinguishing between exposure ofwhole bodies vs. that of bones, by inferring the types of fires and temperatures,their contexts and spatial associations along with the related cultural motivationsand dynamics. These data, together with the physical evidence on defleshing, dis-articulation, and skeletal reuse at the two sites provide novel information on ritualconduct in the power centers of the northern Petén and explore the feasibility forinferring ritual cannibalism.

Vail and Hernández’s work (Chap. 6) introduces the role of sacrifice in thesecond millenium AD. The two scholars explore the pictorial references of sacri-fice during the Late Postclassic founded on a detailed examination of Mayacodices and mural iconography. Their comprehensive analysis attempts to estab-lish links with calendrical cycles, iconography, and hieroglyphic captions toassess why, when, and how the Postclassic Maya engaged in human and animal


sacrifice. The manuscript describes a variety of sacrifical events that are decid-edly useful as alternative models on which to build archaeological and osteolog-ical expectations. Sacrifice is depicted here in an array of fashions, not all of themlethal, even though ritual immolation did represent an important component.Human sacrifice was specifically scheduled for termination rituals marking theend of the tun and k’atun. Although the images refer to the Postclassicand Contact period, they allude to the long-standing importance of sacrifice andits practice long before to the second millenium AD.

Chapter 7 by Miller focuses on the abundant bulk of representations of skullsand sacrificial rituals in Chichén Itzá. Here, not only the recurring carvedrepresentations of crania that appear on many of the site’s structures made animpressive visual impact, but also the bony remains including skulls and longbones were on display. The author underlines depersonalization in the sacrificialexpressions of death. In contrast to most scenes from the Classic period, there areno references to names or other evidence that could identify specific individuals.Chichén’s massive display of skulls, for example, manifests the power of the Itzáto intimidate enemies as well as citizens. Death and its imagery, in the form ofactual skulls or sculpted representations, are at the same time relics of successfulbattles as they are daunting reminders of the authority of the Itzá led regime.Interestingly, Chichén’s depictions mark a clear-cut change in the expression oflocal power from the southern Maya centers during the Classic period. In theClassic, power was centered on the single person, it was personalized, and repre-sentations of sacrifice acted as witnesses to the individual’s supremacy, as werethe important warriors that were destined to be sacrificed.

Chichén Itzá is also the object of Chap. 8, that addresses sacrifice and ritualbody mutilation in the human skeletal remains recovered from the Sacred Cenote.The author’s detailed analysis encompasses all the possible direct and indirectmarks or “signatures” of sacrificial rituals from the collection retrieved during1960s by a team led by Piña-Chan. The demographic structure of the remains,once again, rejects the authenticity of the myth of female virgins being sacrificedat the site. The skeletal sample pertains to individuals of both sexes and all agegroups, though the majority of the remains belong to subadults and, among theadult segment, to young males. Despite the damage that the material suffered dur-ing the recovery process (an airlift sucked up some of the remains), the authormanages to reconstruct different scenarios that might have occurred at the edgeof the cenote. He promotes the idea of dismembered corpses thrown into the sink-hole, taking into account the cut and stab marks encountered on some of theremains. The majority of the remaining pieces did not present specific signs ofviolence. Additionally, several bilateral bony segments could be paired, likelyindicating that whole bodies were deposited in the cenote. Unfortunately, objec-tive factors hampered a thorough osteotaphonomic and archaeological analysis;nonetheless, the skeletal evidence provided by Anda permits a rather comprehen-sive view of the broad array of sacrificial rituals that had been performed at thisimportant Postclassic center.


Studies on Postclassic osteotaphonomy have been undertaken also byHurtado, Cetina, Tiesler, and Folan in Chap. 9. The authors analyze the funeraryand nonfunerary human remains unearthed in the central, administrative, cere-monial, and residential areas of Champotón, situated along the Gulf Coast in thestate of Campeche. This chapter is the result of extensive research that includesdetailed taphonomical and in situ recording, followed by lab analysis. Theresults are supported by a detailed study that benefits fully from the scope ofthe different lines of evidences explored. The authors set out to provide a work-ing model to distinguish funerary from nonfunerary remains and, on this basis,describe and interpret the combined archaeological, taphonomic, and skeletalevidences. They manage to provide a convincing case not only on rituals, par-ticularly for Xipe Totec sacrifices performed at the site, but also on the socialand political dynamics that led to the formation of the skeletal assemblages atChampotón.

In Chap. 10, Serafin and Peraza examine the varied mortuary complex fromthe late Postclassic center of Mayapán. The authors’ findings of anthropogenicmarks document both ancestral body treatments and postsacrificial behavior,and use contextual and ethnohistorical information to infer the differentpossible cultural motivations. As the authors demonstrate, the mass grave ofMayapán’s central Structure Q.152 shows similarities to postsacrificial assem-blages from other Maya sites, mainly to the tzompantli of Iximché, Guatemala.The strategic location of these potentially war-related mass deposits within thesite’s core links them directly to the governing elites and the institutional.

Cucina and Tiesler address health and social status issues of the so-called non-funerary or “problematical” deposits (Chap. 11) recovered at several Classicperiod sites. The colonial records report that sacrificial victims were often fringemembers of the society, though also war prisoners and people kidnapped duringraids were favorite sacrificial targets. This study distinguishes among elite, com-moners, and nonfunerary deposits from contextual evidence, and analyzes themin terms of their mortality, nutrition, and health. The results indicate variable butoverall poor health and nutritional status of the group that apparently did notreceive proper burial. It tends to fall within the commoners’ range of variabilitywith some exceptions for the adult males. One thing for certain, the elite were thehealthiest, at least according to the authors’ results. Reasons and occasions forsacrifice were multiple, as were the targets. The hypothesis that fringe andunhealthy members of the society were selected for sacrifice can be true, but issurely not the only one. Individuals imprisoned during warfare or kidnapped fromother villages were likely normal members of their own societies, which isevident by the overlapping variability between commoners and the problematicsample. Nevertheless, some results contradict colonial records that state thatindividuals were selected for sacrifice because of their good health, regardless ofsex. Interestingly, nonfunerary males were healthier than the nonfuneraryfemales, suggesting that they may have been victimized under more specificcircumstances.


Chapter 12 by Price, Burton, Wright, White, and Longstaffe focuses on stableisotopes of strontium and oxygen to detect the presence of foreigners amongsacrificial victims recovered from Tikal, Kaminaljuyu, and Teotihuacán. Theyprovide detailed information on this relatively new methodological approach forthe Maya area that permits the reconstruction of migratory patterns and individ-ual movements and provenance. The three case studies provide heterogeneousresults, indicating different patterns in the selection of sacrificial victims.

Chapter 13 by Jane Buikstra provides a unified perspective on the advancesmade by the contributors of this volume, centering on the methodological ques-tion as the main issue, as well as the applications and future prospects in Mayaresearch. Buikstra starts out by comparing research on sacrifice and violence inthe Maya realm to that conducted in other cultures of the New World, namely theAndes and North America. As she discusses the focus, accomplishments, andlimitations of each contribution, she explicitly addresses the points that need tobe taken into consideration for future skeletal studies of Maya ritual behavior.They encompass expectations for sacrificial contexts, clear understanding, anddistinction of what is funerary and nonfunerary, and the exploration of the basicbiographic data, their meaning in terms of the political, religious, social, andcultural contexts which originated the entombments.

In conclusion, this volume highlights that skeletal and taphonomic studies ofsacrifice in the Maya region are still in their initial phase. It will take time to acquirea deeper knowledge of the cultural meanings and physical manifestations involvedin ritual violence and of unrelated acts of funerary behavior. As we argue, it willonly be possible to discern and interpret past mortuary behavior through the holis-tic analysis of skeletal remains within a broader archaeological and socioculturalframework. With this perspective, we hope that the approaches presented by thechapters in this volume may inspire fruitful discussions, constructive criticism, and,most of all, a fresh look at the millennium long traditions of the ancient Mayaand their cultural meanings.

Acknowledgments. We wish to acknowledge all those institutions and people whohave made this volume a reality. The 69th SAA meeting in Salt Lake City in 2005granted us the possibility to interact directly with a series of renown scholars whoagreed to join the symposium and whose work appears in this book. This time Veraand I were able to include three of our graduate students from Mérida (Hurtado,Medina, and Anda), who accompanied us to Salt Lake City. They enjoyed theevent as much as we did (except for the vocal challenges provided by the Englishlanguage). We are thankful therefore to Dr. Francisco Fernández Repetto, formerDirector of the Facultad de Ciencias Antropológicas of the Universidad Autónomade Yucatán for funding their travel expenses to Salt Lake City to make this jointendeavor possible. Jane Buikstra’s sharp and always well-thought-out commentsat the end of the symposium gave each of us the opportunity to improve and enrichour contributions and advance the academic level of the volume.

Our thanks go to all of you!


References

Becker, M.J., 1992, Burials as Caches; Caches as Burials: A New Interpretation of theMeaning of Ritual Deposits Among the Classic Period Lowland Maya. In New Theorieson the Ancient Maya, edited by E.C. Danien, and R.J. Sharer, pp. 185–196. TheUniversity Museum Monograph 77, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Becker, M.J., 1993, Earth Offering Among the Classic Period Lowland Maya: Burials andCaches as Ritual Deposits. In Perspectivas antropológicas en el mundo maya, edited byM.J. Iglesias, and F. Ligorred, pp. 45–74. Sociedad Española de Estudios Mayas,Madrid.

Boone, E.H., (editor) 1984, Ritual Human Sacrifice in Mesoamerica. Dumbarton OaksResearch Library and Collection, Washington, DC.

Buikstra, J.E., 1997, Studying Maya Bioarchaeology. In Bones of the Maya: Studies ofAncient Skeletons, edited by S.L. Whittington, and D.M. Reed, pp. 221–228.Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Buikstra, J.E., 2005, Discussion to the Symposium New perspectives on Human Sacrificeand Ritual Body Treatments in Ancient Maya Society. 69th SAA Annual Meeting, SaltLake City, Utah (March 30 to April 3, 2005).

Carrasco, D., 1999, City of Sacrifice. Beacon Press, Boston.Chase, D., and Chase A., 2003, Secular, sagrado y “revisitado”: la profanación, alteración y

reconsagración de los antiguos entierros mayas. In Antropología de la eternidad: Lamuerte en la cultura maya, edited by A. Ciudad, M.H. Ruz, and M.J. Iglesias,pp. 255–277. Sociedad Española de Estudios Mayas y Centro de Estudios Mayas, Madrid.

Cucina, A., and Tiesler V., 2006, The Companions of of Janaab’ Pakal and the “RedQueen” from Palenque, Chiapas: Meanings of Human Companion Sacrifice in ClassicMaya Society. In Janaab’ Pakal of Palenque. Reconstructing the Life and Death of aMaya Ruler, edited by V. Tiesler, and A. Cucina, pp. 102–125. University of Arizona,Tucson.

Davies, N., 1981, Human Sacrifice in History and Today. William Morrow and Co., NewYork.

Demarest, A., 1984, Overview: Mesoamerican Sacrifice in Evolutionary Perspective. InRitual Human Sacrifice in Mesoamerica, edited by E.H. Boone, pp. 227–247.Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, DC.

Duday, H., 1997, Antropología biológica “de campo”, tafonomía y arqueología de lamuerte. In El cuerpo humano y su tratamiento mortuorio, edited by E. Malvido,G. Pereira, and V. Tiesler, pp. 91–126. Serie Antropología Física, Instituto Nacional deAntropología e Historia, Mexico City.

Durán, Fray D., 1993, The History of the Indies of New Spain, translated by D. Heyden.University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Fitzsimmons, J.L., and Fash W.L., 2003, Susaj B’aak: muerte y ceremonia mortuoria en laPlaza Mayor de Copán. In Antropología de la eternidad: La muerte en la cultura maya,edited by A. Ciudad, M.H. Ruz, and M.J. Iglesias, pp. 299–315. Sociedad Española deEstudios Mayas y Centro de Estudios Mayas, Madrid.

Gillespie, S., 2001, Personhood, Agency, and Mortuary Ritual: A Case Study from theAncient Maya. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20:73–112.

Gillespie, S., 2002, Body and Soul Among the Maya: Keeping the Spirits in Place. In TheSpace and Place of Death. Archaeological Papers of the American AnthropologicalAssociation Number 11, edited by H. Silverman, and D. Small, pp. 67–78. AmericanAnthropological Association, Arlington, Virginia.


González, Y., 1985, El sacrificio humano entre los mexicas. Fondo de Cultura Económico,Mexico City.

Harner, M., 1977, The Ecological Basis for Aztec Sacrifice. American Ethnologists4:117–135.

Houston, St., Escobedo, H.L., Scherer, A., Child, M., and Fitzsimmons J.L., 2003, ClassicMaya Death at Piedras Negras, Guatemala. In Antropología de la eternidad: La muerteen la cultura maya, edited by A. Ciudad, M.H. Ruz, and M.J. Iglesias, pp. 113–143.Sociedad Española de Estudios Mayas y Centro de Estudios Mayas, Madrid.

Malvido, E., Pereira, G., and Tiesler V., (editors) 1997, El cuerpo humano y su tratamientomortuorio. Serie Antropología Física, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia,Mexico City.

Matos, E., 1986, Muerte a filo de obsidiana. Lecturas Mexicanas, Mexico City.McAnany, P.A., 1995, Living with the Ancestors. Kinship and Kingship in Ancient Maya

Society. University of Texas, Austin.McAnany, P.A., 1998, Ancestors and the Classic Maya Built Environment. In Function

and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture, edited by S. Houston, pp. 271–298.Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.

McAnany, P.A., and López S., 1999, Re-creating the Formative Maya Village of K’axob:Chronology, Ceramic Complexes, and Ancestors in Architectural Context. AncientMesoamerica 10:147–168.

McAnany, P.A., Storey, R., and Lockard A.K., 1999, Mortuary Ritual and Family Politicsat Formative and Early Classic K’axob, Belize. Ancient Mesoamerica 10:129–146.

Pijoan, C., 1997, Evidencia de sacrificio humano y canibalismo en restos óseos. El casodel entierro número 14 de Tlatelolco, D.F. Doctoral dissertation, Universidad NacionalAutónoma de México, Mexico City.

Pijoan, C., and Lizarraga X. (editors), 2004, Perspectiva tafonómica. Serie AntropologíaFísica, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.

Román, J.A., 1990, Sacrifico de niños en el Templo Mayor. Instituto Nacional deAntropología e Historia, Mexico City.

Ruz, A., 1991, Costumbres funerarias de los antiguos mayas. Instituto de InvestigacionesFilológicas, Centro de Estudios Mayas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,Mexico City.

Sahagún, Fray B., 1932, A History of Ancient Mexico 1547–1577. Fisk University Press,Nashville.

Sugiyama, S., 2005, Human Sacrifice, Militarism and Rulership. Materialization of StateIdeology at the Feathered Serpent Pyramid, Teotihuacan. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Talavera, J., Rojas, J.M., and García E., 2001, Modificaciones culturales en los restosóseos de Cantona, Puebla. Un análisis bioarqueológico. Instituto Nacional deAntropología e Historia, Mexico City.

Tiesler, V., 2004, Maya Mortuary Treatments of the Elite: An OsteotaphonomicPerspective. In Continuity and Change. Maya Religious Practices in TemporalPerspective, edited by D. Graña Behrens, N.Grube, C.M. Prager, F. Sachse, S. Teufel,and E. Wagner, pp. 143–156. Anton Saurwein, Markt Schwaben.

Tiesler, V., Cucina, A., and Romano A., 2002, Vida y muerte del personaje hallado en elTemplo XIII-sub, Palenque: I. Culto funerario y sacrificio humano. Mexicon 24:75–78.

Turner, C.G., and Turner J.A., 1999, Man Corn: Cannibalism and Violence in thePrehistoric American Southwest. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.


Webster, D., 1997, Studying Maya Burials. In Bones of the Maya: Studies of AncientSkeletons, edited by S.L. Whittington, and D.M. Reed, pp. 3–12. SmithsonianInstitution Press, Washington, DC.

Weiss-Krejci, E., 2001, Restless Corpses: ‘Secondary Burial’ in the Babenberg andHabsburg Dynasties. Antiquity 75:769–780.

Weiss-Krejci, E., 2003, Victims of Human Sacrifice in Multiple Tombs of the AncientMaya: a Critical Review. In Antropología de la eternidad: La muerte en la culturamaya, edited by A. Ciudad, M.H. Ruz, and M.J. Iglesias, pp. 355–381. SociedadEspañola de Estudios Mayas y Centro de Estudios Mayas, Madrid.

Welsh, B., 1988, An Analysis of Classic Lowland Maya Burials. International Series No.409, British Archaeological Reports, London.


2Funerary or Nonfunerary? New References in Identifying AncientMaya Sacrificial and PostsacrificialBehaviors from Human Assemblages

VERA TIESLER

14

2.1. Introduction

Four decades ago, Alberto Ruz’s comprehensive compendium on pan-Maya burialtraditions Costumbres funerarias de los antiguos mayas (“Ancient Mayaburial customs”) drew attention to the complexity and diversity of the area’s pastfunerary record (Ruz, 1968). His all-embracing collection of data, organizedaccording to the then popular cultural-historical mind frame, still stands as a basicsource of reference, anticipating what has become a systematical study of theMaya mortuary complex. Archaeological research, supplemented by written andiconographic information, has now granted a broader understanding of the scopeof ancient Maya ancestral practices, together with their underlying eschatologicalcodes and social conditions (see, for example, Ciudad et al., 2003; Cobos, 2004;McAnany, 1995; Welsh, 1988a).

Less understood are the many human clusters in the archaeological record thatdo not clearly denote ancestral practices. Regarding the multifaceted nature ofthe Maya mortuary complex, we could make a point by stating that most of thehuman assemblages recovered from precontact Maya contexts lack clear funerarystatus. The many human disposals that appear in caves and sink holes, multiplesand mass deposits, figure among those, to be discussed extensively in subsequentchapters in this volume. Some of the above contexts have been assigned potentialsacrificial status, yet without being able to reach a broad agreement in the schol-arly community.

Here, I have opted, for practical reasons, to deal with human assemblages ofpresumably extrafunerary nature according to three broad categories: cache remains,isolated bone scatters, and primary disposals. The first category, cache remains,identifies the scattered, intermingled, and incomplete human assemblages in clearlyoffertory arrangements that have habitually been tagged as “caches.” These identifyhuman clusters explicitly or implicitly as ceremonial artifacts, a notion essentiallydistinct from the reverential statuses implied by funerary disposals.1 Naturally, this dualistic nomenclature comes short of benefiting all assignments of humanassemblages, as already acknowledged by William Coe who stated that separating

2. Funerary or Nonfunerary? 15

these two categories (i.e., caches and burials) “... may be misleading in attempts toexplain ancient Maya ritual behavior” (Coe, 1965; see also Coe, 1959). The prob-lems inherent in this either/or assignment have triggered concerns for oversimplifi-cation and have led some authors, like Marshall Becker, to propose alternativeappreciations on these human assemblages. His view of human ritual deposits is notdichotomic, rather it is a broad continuum with some burials appearing as a cacheand others as caches combined with a burial (Becker, 1992, 1993).2

The working definition for our second category of controversial humandeposits, isolated bone scatters, is even more unspecific. Loosely labeled as “con-centrations,” “miscellaneous human remains,” or “problematical deposits,” thisgroup is made up largely of random bone scatters in the fills and constructionmiddens of Maya sites. The clusters mostly consist of small quantities of inter-mingled skeletal material unlikely to represent burials (see for example Becker,1993; Coe, 1990; Iglesias, 2003; Kunen et al., 2002; see also Medina and Sánchezin this volume). The labeling as “problematical” admits, per se, the impossibilityof assigning a clear pattern to isolated human components beyond suggesting aseries of potential formation processes that could relate to ritual or domesticrefuse discard, recycling of human bones and teeth for artifact production, or pro-tracted funerary practices. In recent years, the mortuary pathways of this type ofhuman concentrations have been examined more closely in ancient ceremonialdumps. Attempts to disentangle their ritual meanings have been approached fromtheir depositional histories, symbolic spaces, or underlying agential behaviors(Kunen et al., 2002; Mock, 1994; Walker, 1995; Walker and Lucero, 2000).

The third category of debatable human assemblages concerns primary (dis-turbed or undisturbed), but mostly complete disposals that show ignoble handlingor at least lack clear evidence of ancestral treatment. It includes container burialsand mass graves, considered by many authors as sacrificial depositories (see, forexample, Fowler, 1984; Ruz, 1968; Welsh, 1988a,b). However, the absence ofdirect indications of violent forms of death, which hampers any secure interpreta-tion in the great majority of cases, has recently caused a dispute on their sacrificialorigin. Doubts have been cast specifically on the authenticity of companion sacri-fice in royal tombs from several Maya sites, including Tikal’s Tomb 10 orPalenque’s great mausoleum of Janaab’ Pakal inside the Temple of the Inscriptions(see Weiss-Krejci, 2003). The debate challenges the often arbitrary inferences ofcompanion sacrifice from multiple internments, like those proposed by Welsh(1988a,b) or Ruz (1968) for lack of sufficient evidence. The very concept of“funerary attendants” has been questioned in many examples of alleged companionburials (Weiss-Krejci, 2003; see also Cucina and Tiesler, Chap. 1 in this volume).

Attempts to gain a subtler understanding of nonancestral human assemblageshave proliferated especially in the past decade. As we have seen, the new recre-ations stress notions of continuity and correspondence between offerings ingeneral and funerary interments, much different from the initial tenets of dualism.Both have been conceived jointly as markers of sacred spaces, material witnessesof an evolving built environment and of political evolvement, or simply as “earthofferings” (Becker, 1992, 1993; Lucero, 2003; McAnany, 1998; McAnany and

López, 1999, McAnany et al., 1999). At a time when the difficulties inherent inMaya mortuary reconstruction are ever more apparent, cognitive and especiallyagential approaches have acquired resonance in the academic community. Theyattempt to imbue ritual human deposits with ideological significance and to gaina subtler understanding of the diversified ritual behaviors that once originatedfrom the material record (Gillespie, 2001, 2002; Joyce, 1999, 2003a,b; Kunenet al., 2002; Lucero, 2003; McAnany, 1998; McAnany et al., 1999; Walker, 1995).These novel frames of references are pursued by some contributions assembled inthis volume.

In sum, current work on Maya nonancestral mortuary conduct has successfullyaddressed many old and new caveats and brought forth useful working frame-works for understanding ritual functions of human deposits within Mayaconstructed spaces and cosmology.

However, some of the readings of their depositional histories fail to addressprecisely the question of their potentially sacrificial vs. nonsacrificial origin. Thisis neglectful of the fundamental underlying dichotomy between ancestral prac-tices as opposed to postsacrificial processing, and natural death as opposed todeath originating from ritual violence. Therefore, the recognition and interpreta-tion of postsacrificial deposits vs. proper burials or those stemming from otherunrelated conducts, and the identification of ritual, violent vs. natural death stillappears, at best, ambiguous in much of the recent work.

One root of these shortcomings is the neglect of the skeletal data, reduced by thenotoriously degraded state of preservation of the subject matter, hampering severelydirect examinations of culturally inflicted lesions. Likewise, the diversity and com-plexity of ancient Maya mortuary conduct and its manifold material expressionslimit in practice the possibilities of finding any unique, distinctive patterns in theskeletal record. Methodologically, the strong reliance on documentary and contex-tual data, coupled with the neglect of direct biographic and taphonomical evidence,has resulted equally detrimental for a full appreciation of ancient mortuary path-ways and a skewed or erroneous view of the types of conduct they may represent.

Studies or even references to culturally inflicted peri- or postmortem skeletalmarks are still very few in Maya research (see for example Buikstra et al., 2004;Cucina and Tiesler, 2006; Massey, 1994; Massey and Steele, 1982, 1997; Mock,1994; Tiesler, 2002; Tiesler and Cucina, 2003; Tiesler et al., 2002; Wurster, 2000).They have not been scrutinized systematically yet in Maya research as opposed toother cultural areas, namely the North American Southwest and Europe and, to alesser degree the Mesoamerican Highlands. In these regions, pattern recognitionhas been successfully put to work in the interpretation of anthropogenic bone mod-ifications (Botella et al., 2000; Pijoan and Lizárraga, 2004; Talavera et al., 2001;Tiesler, 2004; Turner and Turner, 1999; White, 1992). I argue that in practice thissituation has led to a chasm between the iconographically based affirmative inter-pretations of sacrificial behavior (see for example Boone, 1984; Martin and Grube,2000; Miller, 2003; Schele, 1984; Schele and Miller, 1986; Stuart, 2003; Taube,1994, 1999), and the reluctance among some archaeologists to accept the vestiges ofritual killings or otherwise violent conduct as such. Specifically, earlier sacrificial

16 Vera Tiesler

appraisals of incomplete or irregular primary arrangements, namely the onesdescribed for Tikal (Coe, 1990) or Palenque (Ruz, 1992), have recently been dis-carded for lack of proof at a time when alternative explanations abound. Theseseem to favor a broad range of more reverential posthumous treatments (Becker,1992; Chase and Chase, 1996, 1998; Fitzsimmons, 1998; Fitzsimmons and Fash,2003; Gillespie, 2001, 2002; McAnany, 1995; McAnany et al., 1999; Saul andSaul, 2002; Weiss-Krejci, 2003; see also Chase and Chase, 2003; Tiesler, 2004;Tiesler and Cucina, 2003, for different views).

Here I wish to contribute a set of osteotaphonomic correlates of funerary vs.sacrificial practices, derived from religious-philosophical references adapted tothe region. They are designed to assist in the recognition and interpretation of dif-ferent posthumous body treatments and the potential funerary vs. nonfuneraryconduct they may represent. Some of these are put to work in this chapter, otherslater in the volume.

2.2. Meanings and Expressions of Sacrificial vs. Funerary Behavior

I begin with the premise that most of the attributes of funerary and postsacrifi-cial human placements stem from ritualized conduct, i.e., human behavior thatenacts elements of a shared ideology. In the following paragraphs I outline somekey codes of ritual behavior that underlie each of these. The concepts encompassby no means the actual range of ancient ritual behavior but those features thatanchor the expected and divergent skeletal, artifactual, and contextual patterns tobe discussed.

2.2.1. Maya Death and Burial

Like in other hierarchical societies (Carr, 1995; Pader, 1982), the broad scope offunerary traditions known for the Maya realm range from the varied, sponta-neous, or semiformalized family practices to the symbol-laden, state expressionsof dynastic ancestral veneration. Here, the dead were not buried in cemeteries butwere most likely laid to rest within close range of their living descendants and,although to a lesser extent, in the ceremonial edifices and public spaces of sitecores. A vigorous cult for individual paramounts evolved toward the Classicperiod, which clearly surpassed long-standing family traditions, on par withdeveloping political hierarchy and centralized rulerships. In the mortuary record,this tendency finds its expression in the richly furnished elite mausoleums, oftenmotivated by the commemoration of deceased lineage members in the form ofpublic performances apt to highlight supreme political, religious, and militaryauthority (Inomata and Triadan, 2003; Lucero, 2003; McAnany, 1995).

Regarding reverential corpse treatment, we know several forms of body prepara-tion during the Classic period. They include, among the others, carefully placing thebody inside the funerary space in a supine or flexed arrangement. Embalming and


wrapping procedures were practiced in some areas, along with the application ofpigment. Other body treatments, such as predepositional defleshing and dismember-ment, have not yet been clearly identified in the burial record of the Classic period.Not even does cremation stand as a widely spread funerary practice during that time,despite the mentions that refer to fires in and around tombs (Eberl, 2005;Fitzsimmons, 1998; Stuart, 1998). As in other Mesoamerican cultural settings, cre-mation appears to have become a regionally shared tradition only later (Iglesias,2003; Landa, 1982 [sixteenth century]; Ruz, 1968).

A great variety of postdepositional manipulations of ancestors (i.e., the process-ing of disarticulated remains) is known for the Maya area. These include the paint-ing of bones, the extraction (reduction) or introduction of skeletal parts, individualand collective reburial, and reuse of single bones as relics. These were destined tobe venerated in temples and altars or to accompany later primary interments of fam-ily members (Chase and Chase, 1998, 2003; McAnany, 1998; McAnany et al.,1999; Ruz, 1968; Sharer and Traxler, 2003; Welsh, 1988a). More ignoble distur-bances took the form of desecration and looting, or construction activities that unin-tentionally damaged the grave long after its location had been forgotten.

2.2.2. Human Sacrifice as an Institution

Different from the heterogeneous ancestral expressions known in the Maya areaand different from animal sacrifice, we assume that human ritual sacrifice and,albeit to a lesser extent, postsacrificial body treatments identify an extreme ofinstitutional and highly redundant ritual performances, controlled by the elite inpower. The term “sacrifice” comes from the Latin sacer facere, which means “tomake holy” (Bell, 1997; Hubert and Mauss, 1964). Most theological and anthro-pological works communicate that the central distinctive feature of sacrifice is theconsecration that goes with it. A recurrent theme in sacrificial descriptions statesthat the victim, now associated with supernatural status, is immolated and offeredto the gods. As such, human sacrifice is considered a supreme ritual form bysocieties which stage it for the termination of a man’s life while the offering ofits vital essences (sometimes consumed collectively or burnt) allows for theultimate communication and exchange with the sacred (Beattie, 1980; Bell, 1997;Bourdillon, 1980; Rappaport, 2004).

Available historic and iconographic information on the ancient Mayas conveysthe idea that their performance of human sacrifice did not make an exception to theabove statements (Helfrich, 1973; Moser, 1973; Nájera, 1987). Here, human ritualkillings were carried out by a squad of religious specialists, with close ties to thecircles holding political, military, and religious power (Boone, 1984; Nájera, 1987;Schele and Miller, 1986). Colonial Yucatecan sources generally refer to the Ah Kinor high priest assisted by one or more Nacomes. It is also evident that strict framesof conduct regulated ritual killings. A set of rules and general concerns were closelyfollowed by all participants before, during, and after the performance of humansacrifice to ensure the effectiveness of the rite (López, 1989, 1998; Nájera, 1987).

18 Vera Tiesler

The sacrificial choreography was usually preceded by a number of preparationsincluding fasting and autosacrifice, and initiated with the presentation of the victim.The ritual killing and endowment followed, and the vital essences of the body werecollected and handed to the high priest who offered them to the gods while invok-ing the supernatural (Landa, 1982 [sixteenth century]).

2.2.3. Occasions for Human Sacrifice

Within this frame of behavior, variation is introduced depending on the ritualsthat accompanied the sacrifice, the occasions that prompted them, the regionalsetting, and the epoch. As in other traditional societies, there is a plethora ofleitmotivs for ritual ceremonies in Mesoamerica, which also holds true for theirsacrificial forms. Retrospectively, it is problematical in most cases to assignany specific message or purpose associated with ancient ritual executions, moreso from the pictorial or archaeological record (but see Vail and Hernández forinferences on sacrificial forms from codices).

Therefore, I will attempt to distill some broad categories of ritual action thatmay be relevant for the understanding of the area’s ancient cultural complexes(Bourdillon, 1980; Beattie, 1980; Bell, 1997; López, 1998; Rappaport, 2004).Most Maya religious motifs fit in with the notion of “communion sacrifice.”Sacrifice benefits communion between humans and gods to renew the cosmosand thus secure common well-being. Many propitious, prophetic, and dedicatoryritual conducts, captive killings, and calendrical ceremonies dedicated to certainpresiding deities fall into this category (see also Vail and Hernández in thisvolume). Such are the ceremonies dedicated to God A for example, who isrepresented with skeletal attributes and frequently appears together with Chac inscenes of sacrifice and mock self-decapitation (Miller and Taube, 1993; Robicsekand Hales, 1981, 1984; Taube, 1992, 1994). God A appears closely related to GodQ who also exhibits the accoutrements of death and sacrifice. The latter is com-monly depicted with a flayed or fleshless face, similar to the attributes of his emu-lated Postclassic counterpart Xipe Totec, the flayed god of the Aztecs (González,1985; Matos, 1986; see also Hurtado et al. in this volume). Blindfolded by a facialband, he is equipped with a burning torch, sacrificial knifes, and other stoneimplements suggestive of ritual execution. Like the adopted Xipe cult during thePostclassic period, God Q appears related to a series of postsacrificial rituals,including flaying, defleshing, and ritual consumption.

A different form of sacrifice is delineated by the notions of prestigious killings.They are destined to individual paramounts and important events in Maya royallife (enthronement, deaths etc.), more than collective well-being. They underlinethe superiority and power of the receiver, and appear primarily related to individ-ual benefit and needs at the same time that other themes designating religious sac-rifice are absent (Bourdillon, 1980). In the Maya realm, this notion is expressedfor example by aristocratic companion sacrifice (Cucina and Tiesler 2006;McAnany, 1995 see Medina and Sánchez in this volume).


Sorcerers’ killings, as part of witchcraft or black magic, and expiation (i.e.judicial) executions identify additional categories related to the theme of humansacrifice (Beatty, 1980; Bourdillon, 1980; Bell, 1997). While the former is per-formed in secret and does not respond to community values or interests, the lat-ter (executions of deviant individuals) designates corrective, retaliatoryresponses. Killings of harmful or potentially harmful members of the communityserve as corrective measures to re-establish harmony and, at the same time, securethe continuity of the collective well-being. Evil forces exerted by certain individ-uals are eliminated by ending their lives, by removing them from the society, andsometimes by physically destroying their bodies by mutilation or fire, themes thatwill be explored by Lucero and Gibbs in the volume.

A similar notion is expressed during the so-called “disjunction sacrifices,”despite its impersonal quality (Beattie, 1980). Disjunction rituals are not moti-vated by contact and union with spiritual powers but instead seek to destroy or atleast remove them from society, which in turn identifies termination ritualsamong the Maya and, in fact, the pan-Mesoamerican sphere (McGee, 1998;Mock, 1994; Sugiyama, 1998; Vogt, 1998).

2.2.4. Sacrifice and Violence

As in other cultural settings that stage human sacrifice, a kratophonous (destruc-tive) or cathartic element is introduced during the metamorphosis of the victims,who lose their personal human qualities during their transformation into imper-sonators of the sacred (Hubert and Mauss, 1964; Walker, 1995). The culminationof the ceremony was sometimes anticipated by prolonged torture and humiliation,as Schele (1984) documents in her survey of the iconographic record. Genitalmutilation and blood-letting of bound war captives appear especially recurrent aspictorial motives in ritual scenes. A recurring motif is also established by thevisual destruction during immolation itself, achieved by arrow wounds, decapita-tion, and heart excision, or by throwing the victim down from temple facades orinto cenotes. Now “broken,” the body of the victim is left while producing a vio-lent outpouring of blood – the essence of life and sustenance to the gods. Thistheme is apparent in the scenes from Piedras Negras and the Dresden Codex.Taube (1999:228–239) associates Postclassic period heart excision with the muti-lated earth goddess at Chichén Itzá, who are represented as being cut in two by apair of bladed serpents. Colonial descriptions are consonant with the pictorialevidence, when referring to victims rolling down the temple stairs immediatelyafter death (Landa, 1982 [sixteenth century]).

2.3. Funerary or Nonfunerary: Skeletal and ContextualCorrelates for Ancient Ritual Behavior

From the previous discussion, it follows, at least in principle, that most of the sac-rificial practices of the Maya are expected to produce patterns in the materialrecord that differ from reverential mortuary assemblages. For the purpose of

20 Vera Tiesler

clarity, I will discuss Maya standard funerary or nonfunerary practices within broadcategories of sequenced expected operational components along the peri- andpostmortem time line. They are intended to differentiate each stage of sacrificialand funerary behavior documented in the region’s ethnohistorical and icono-graphic record (Table 2.1). This classification is designed to provide analyticalelements in the correlation of past activities and the skeletal marks it might haveproduced. Considered along with other indicators, the taphonomical signaturesproduced by peri- and postmortem manipulations (Table 2.2) should assist in thedistinction between behavior related to ritual slaying or postsacrificial bodymanipulations, and other, unrelated, treatments.

2.3.1. Death and Perimortem Violence

As noted above, conventional Maya mortuary research tends to assign unnaturaldeath to those contexts that lack a clear funerary status. The scholarly communityconsiders irregular and ventral positioning as evidence, indicating an ignobletreatment of the deceased (whose body appears to have been carelessly depositedinto a mortuary depository). In primary contexts and especially in tombs con-taining multiple burials and elaborate accoutrements, the presence of sacrificialvictims has been assumed on the grounds of positioning (or, rather, lack of posi-tioning), and contextual evidence when successive interments can be ruled out.The entangled primary interments of various individuals arranged around onecentrally placed skeleton, age, and nutritional profiles and the negative evidenceof associated funerary objects have been cited specifically as clues to unnaturaldeath (Chase and Chase, 2003; Cucina and Tiesler, 2006; Fowler, 1984; Ruz,1968; Welsh, 1988b).

Probably the most direct evidence of ritual slaying is provided by skeletal indi-cations of perimortem violence although the term “perimortem” is problematic bydefinition, as it admits the investigator’s inability to discriminate modificationsthat have occurred right before and after death (Sorg and Haglund, 2002:8).However, in most cases, perimortem trauma is distinguishable from practices ofclearly posthumous nature by evidence of implied conduct and by the vehemenceof the action that they indicate. Although the form and cause of death cannot beascertained from their presence alone, perimortem violence, by definition, is aptto leave unhealed impact lesions in the form of fractures, stab marks, and sharpand blunt force trauma. The pattern left by these lesions differs from the surfacealterations produced by body dismemberment, removal of soft tissue, or long-lasting exposition, whose nature is clearly posthumous.

As regards our own research in the northern Petén area, we have documenteda series of cases allusive of blunt and sharp force trauma at Calakmul and Becán,in the Mexican state of Campeche, and Dzibanché in Quintana Roo. Additionalevidence was collected from the burial compounds associated with the sarcophagiof Janaab’ Pakal and of the so-called “Red Queen” (Structure XIII sub), fromPalenque, Chiapas. The samples from these sites were studied systematically interms of their depositional processes, biovital attributes, minimal number of indi-viduals per context, and body parts represented. The evaluation of disposition and


Documents

New Perspectives on Human Sacrifice and Ritual Body ... · x Table of Contents. 1 New Perspectives on Human Sacrifice and Postsacrificial Body Treatments in Ancient Maya Society: